This piece has not been properly edited and its a bit untailored but if you want to think about Genetic Engineering some more... Genetic Engineering in Agriculture - unedited and incompletely referenced Genetic modification is the final – or most recent – frontier of the ‘commodification of nature’. Genetic modification of food crops and the genetic manipulation of seed marks the extreme to which the human/nature dichotomy is taken: we think that we can control nature even at the genetic level. The arguments for GM in food production are largely based on ideas of a) a growing population and b) existing world hunger, with the question being, how are we going to feed all the people who are still going to be born, when we already have world hunger? Proponents for genetic modification see the answer as being increased food production, which should be achieved through the genetic manipulation and ‘improvement’ of existing food crops – and the ‘improvement’ of ‘nature’. Genetic modification is also seen as a means to protect the environment through intensified food production. We will look at modern industrial agriculture and its environmental consequences, and the arguments for these methods. We will consider the arguments for GM and situate these in economic and historical context. By looking at the arguments and evidence against the unqualified adoption and dissemination of GM technologies, we will see that GM has a range of environmental, social, economic and political consequences and that the arguments for GM modification are not as straight-forward, neutral or well-meaning as they seem at first. The commodification of nature and the objectification and manipulation of natural processes (i.e. DNA sequencing) is based on this philosophy human-nature separation, that justifies humans (apparent) control of it. By situating the “scientific facts” in the economic and social context of world trade we see that control of DNA is as much about the control of the food economy. Stone (date) points out that the GM debate is polarised, and presents the polarised debates. He makes the point that GM has potential for making crops such as cassava more resistant and marketable in the cash economy. By looking only at the debates at either extreme, Stone himself fails to consider the complexities of genetic engineering of food in terms of the global economy, or environmental and social impacts thereof. Arguments for GM are exemplified by a speech presented by a man called Dennis Avery at the Agriculture Institute of Canada Conference, who also served in the US government advising on food and agricultural foreign policy, and sits on the US President’s National Advisory Commission on Food and Fiber (Hudson Institute Online). As an ex- state employee and representative for “high yield” industrial agriculture, I take his views to be representative of the pro-GM line of thought. Avery claims that “high yield technologically supported agriculture” is good for the environment and people through -increased yield. -the use of less land thus saving wildlife -less use of pesticides and therefore less pollution (because pesticides can be introduced into seed through GE) -genetic diversity can be maintained in seed banks. He says, “We cannot choose between feeding malnourished children and saving endangered wild species. Without higher yields, peasant farmers will destroy the wildlands and species to keep their children from starving. Sustainably higher yields of crops and trees are the only visible way to save both.” These are the arguments for genetic technologies and industrial farming. However, we really need to situate Genetic Modification in the broader agricultural system of production – which is essentially looking at economics (Roberts 2008)- to understand their consequences for people and the environment. Lets first look at what genetic modification is, in layman’s terms. DNA, which dictates what physical attributes and organism will express, can be manipulated so that the organism expresses new attributes. DNA can be introduced from the same kind of organism, and even from completely different species (Roberts 2008: 243). For example, genes from Arctic fish are introduced into tomatoes and strawberries so that aren’t affected by frosts. Strains that have evolved over 100s or thousands of years through selective breeding are manipulated in this way, the most favourable attributes being emphasised. Plants can be manipulated to display certain attributes over generations. GE takes this one step further my introducing new gene sequencing in a matter of years through research and development. GE is applied to produce plants that have higher yields, produce their own pesticides, to produce sterile seed or even pharmaceuticals. The development and testing of GM crops is becoming more prevalent. In South Africa in 2002, we had 175 GM field tests and permits for field trials for cotton, maize, soybeans, apple, canola, wheat, potatoes, sugarcane, eucalyptus and grapes (Biowatch 2002: 4). The South African government has been very open to biotechnology in agriculture, but the public is not alerted: there is no legislation that declares that GM foods or products should be labelled. So what is the problem with GM crops, you might ask. Isn’t it a good thing to solve world hunger? We need to look at some of the assumptions inherent in the arguments for biotechnology, and then consider the reality of the modern agricultural industry and the consequences of GE at different levels. GE seed is developed and sold by multinational companies which have the resources to conduct scientific tests and develop biotechnologies, and take patents out on them. The largest of these companies is Monsanto. Monsanto started out as a chemical company in 1901, producing PCB’s, DDT and Agent Orange which are toxic substances used as flame retardants (PCB), insecticides (DDT) and war (Agent Orange used in the Vietnam War). After WW2 munitions factories were converted to fertiliser and pesticide factories, using the same nitrogen-based chemicals. Monsanto is one such company which made the transition from producing chemicals for warfare to chemicals for agriculture, and so proceeded to provide a range of products including seed to the agricultural industry – and now dominates the world seed industry, and GM seed in particular. In 7 years, from the 90s onwards, Monsanto bought up 10 of the world’s leading seed corporations and research companies, including 2 in South Africa. The GM seeds that are produced and sold to farmers and tested in countries like South Africa, and are all under patents. When the seed is sold to farmers, they have to sign a contract where they agree not to sell, share or store seed, and they have to pay an additional technology fee (Shiva 1999: 601). If they do, they are liable for a fine. In some cases, they must agree to buy pesticides, herbicides or fertiliser from the same company. Because all GM seeds on the market fall under patent laws, member countries of the WTO must allow for the penalisation of farmers if they contravene the contracts and patent laws. This means that farmers are forced to buy new seed every year, and they lose control over a critical link in the chain of food production: seed. And the multinational corporations take over control of that step of production. What we see here is the privatisation of seed, and essentially the control of food production. But do GM technologies do everything that is promised by proponents i.e. increase food production, reduce world hunger and protect the environment? To begin with, the assumption that we need higher food production is seen as misguided by many critics. High yield industrial agriculture has been shown to produce more food than necessary in certain parts of the world, leading to food surpluses. However, world food stocks are strictly controlled in order to maintain their market value. In fact, the world food production is in excess by 20% of world calorific requirements (Roberts 2008: xvii). The problem is not that there is not enough food, but that it is inequitably distributed. Does high yield agriculture using biotechnology improve the environment or save wildlife? That is debatable, and evidence suggests otherwise. High yield industrial agriculture is characterised by monoculture, which means growing one type of crop only. Monocultural agriculture lowers the cost of production by simplifying and standardising sowing, fertilising, harvesting and processing (Horne and McDermott 2001: 9). Machinery can be used to manage standardised crops, thereby reducing labour time and costs. Farmers in this system are able to produce more at lower costs through “economies of scale”. GM seeds and technologies are supposed to allow farmers even higher yields at lower costs. But monoculture and biotechnologies have numerous consequences. Crops of only one type attract specific species of pests and infestations, which are encouraged to breed by the availability of food e.g. grasshoppers. Such pests can damage them severely. Manual management of pests in large scale agriculture is time consuming and therefore costly, so farmers choose to use pesticides and fungicides to deal with pests. Clearing species and leaving spaces between crops and leaving the soil bare invites weed proliferation which is encouraged by the addition of fertilisers. Weeds are eradicated through the use of herbicides. Crops and plants require nitrogen and absorb nutrients through the soil. Nutrients need to be replaced constantly to ensure maintained production. The cheapest and easiest means to replace nutrients is through the use of chemical fertilisers. Monoculture and high yield agriculture requires large tracts of land to be economically viable, and lends itself to farm consolidation as farmers fight to keep production costs down and remain competitive on the market. Large tracts of land require machinery. There are numerous environmental consequences of farming like this. In the USA, agriculture is the largest source of non-point pollution (Horne and McDermott 2001: 21), particularly into water bodies. Pesticides, fungicides, herbicides and fertilisers (produced from the same substances used in artillery and nerve gases) are washed away in runoff that is made worse by the soil exposure and the use of machinery that compresses the soil (Holme and McDermott 2001: 10). These chemicals affect water quality, affect fish and amphibian life cycles. Excess fertilisers promote the growth of blue green algae in water bodies. When these algae die, they begin to decompose, which robs the water of oxygen, leading to mass fish kills, for example (Roberts 2008: 217). Such runoff leads to a 7000sq mile dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico every summer and spring. Insects and weeds develop resistance to pesticides and become increasingly difficult to manage, leading to the use of more and different poisons. And, clearing large tracts of land that are stripped bare every year for replanting leads to soil erosion and the removal of habitats for species and wildlife, and the loss of species diversity. Moreover, because only a few kinds of crops get grown through monoculture to supply the world market, there is also loss of diversity in food crop species. Of hundreds of maize and potato species there are only about 4 commercially available varieties. GM seeds themselves have environmental and social consequences, but these are not yet well understood or manifest. This is particularly because genetic behaviour is not a predictable science: gene sequences introduced into new species can recombine with other gene sequences with unknown or unpredictable responses (Heineman DATE: 151, Shiva et al. 1999: 605). As the diversity of life on earth shows us, the possibilities for genetic evolution are just about infinite. It is also possible for genetic characteristics from a GM crop to transfer to a nearby non-GM crop, leading it to produce seeds and plants with the new genetic characteristics. Unknowingly, one could eat mielies with pharmaceutical or toxic components in them. Scientists have been able to squeeze centuries-long processes into a few years through GE, and the consequences of this have yet to be established. While GM crops may produce their intended characteristics under ideal lab conditions, how they might respond under different conditions can also not be predicted. The case presented by Shiva et al. (1999) shows how a GM crop did not produce its intended yield or fend off pests as it was designed to. So there are questions as to whether GM seeds can really deliver on the promises made on their behalf. Shiva et al’s (1999) article highlights some of the potential social consequences for farmers adopting GM technologies, and raises questions about whether we actually can or do control nature. Shiva et al. (1999) tell us about the introduction of GM cottonseed to India through a partnership between multinational, Monsanto, and Indian seed company, Mahyco. The seed was engineered to produce a toxin that is used as a pesticide, for the control of bollworm, a cotton pest. Little is known about the effects of Bt toxin on animals or people, but these kinds of toxic proteins have different effects on different body tissues and some are toxic to human and mouse cells (Heineman DATE: 149). It can’t be predicted how such a genetic modification can evolve in the new organism (Heineman DATE: 151). And these pests can become immune to the effects of such insecticides (Shiva et al. 1999: 601). The Bt cotton was presented as being pest resistant, and reduce costs for farmers because they didn’t need to apply pesticides to the plant, and to reduce pollution from crop spraying (Shiva et al. 1999: 609). But, the crops did not undergo rigorous field tests to see if they would produce as intended in the Indian context. When farmers in Andhra Pradesh province planted the crops, they were beset by insect infestation. Some of the cotton bolls fell off. Famers went in to debt to buy additional but ineffective pesticides, and because of crop failure, were unable to pay their debts. Because at first it was profitable to grow cotton, many farmers replaced their traditional food crops with cotton. So when crops failed, they were not only in debt but had no food crops. Between 1997-1998 300 cotton farmers committed suicide in Andhra Pradesh – up to 300 families without a main breadwinner. Aside from the potential unintended environmental consequences of GM technologies , this case gives one local example of the potential social and economic consequences of the adoption of GM crops that are not adequately tested and do not express their genetic alterations as intended. The findings of this case suggest the need to properly test and regulate genetic and biotechnologies before releasing them commercially, especially in South Africa where Bt maize for human consumption has been introduced. While multinational corporations stand to benefit enormously through their monopoly over the seed market, the social, economic and environmental consequences of “high-yield technologically supported agriculture” are far more complex and far-reaching than the idealistic assumptions about their benefits. This analysis is not a value judgment of biotechnology and industrial agriculture, but when it is being strongly promoted and pushed, and swallowed by the South African government, one needs to look carefully at the claims for biotechnology and see if they are really validated by ethnographic evidence i.e. in practice. Much is made out of the potential for GM crops to aid humanity, but in reality these have not yet been proven, and their consequences are as yet poorly understood. Stone presents polarised debates on the issue of GM. He also promotes the value of anthropological enquiry for understanding the actual consequences, and costs and benefits of GM. Anthropological research provides the opportunity to understand the local consequences of global policies (i.e. TRIPS/patenting) and economics (in the context of world trade) and in terms of the global agricultural industry. Specifically, it can add great value in understanding the consequences in people’s daily lives of adopting GM technology. Moreover, anthropology offers the chance to think critically about the motivation for and operation of genetic technologies in Africa before swallowing the arguments of either extremes.
Posted on: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 11:12:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015